October 13, 2009

When Dick Cheney kept giving "exclusive" interviews to Fox "personalities," there were those of us who ridiculed both the personalities and the former vice president for going through the ridiculous exercise of lobbing softballs and swinging at them.... Cheney saw newspapers such as The New York Times and news channels such as CNN as little more than branches of his Democratic opposition.

When [White House communications director Anita] Dunn was asked whether the president refused to accept interview requests from Fox because the White House sees the network as "a wing of the Republican party," the communications director responded: "Is this why he did not appear? The answer is yes."

It's wrong of Obama to shun the media he perceives as oppositional, but it's even worse, Nichols says, "to try and 'whip' relatively like-minded writers and reporters into line." (Why did Nichols put "whip" in quotes? So we wouldn't picture Obama with an actual whip or because he really wanted to say "pussy-whip.")

[T]hat appears to be what the Obama team was trying to do with the silly "policing action" of having a White House "adviser," speaking on condition of anonymity, encourage liberal bloggers to "take off their pajamas" and get serious about politics...

The bloggers should also take the criticism as confirmation that they are right when they suggest that this administration is increasingly out of touch with the progressive base that secured Obama the Democratic nomination and ultimately propelled him to the White House.

The fact is that the results of the 2008 election did not reveal "a closely-divided country." Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide.

("Muscular mandate"... I love that.)

IN THE COMMENTS: t-man said:

How can they say he had a mandate when no one even knew what they were voting for?

I think he's doing exactly what he got a mandate to do: vagueness, dithering, pleasing without really doing anything. Give the man some credit! That's why I voted for him.

134 comments:

dont think that managed news is anything new--I recall when JFK tried it, and the history of presidential versus media conflicts goes back to at least 1792 with the federalists versus the democrats. So in perspective, the conflict is long standing.

This conflict seems to me, however, to run counter to Obama's bullshit campaign promises about openess and accountability, and bringing us together. Obama is just as much a liar as most other politicians that have held public office. But hope and change and all of that.

The fact is that the results of the 2008 election did not reveal "a closely-divided country." Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide.

And that worked how well?

Seriously, as I recall, it was a 5% popular vote swing and a good hefty EC swing (natch). So is 47%/52% not a divide? Aren't these the (generally) same peeps always whinging about the EC and going to the popular vote? Sheesh.

Obama did not win because of "progressives," i.e., communists. (The Nation is a commie propaganda rag.)

He won because the economy collapsed during the last year of the Bush administration. He won because McCain ran a hopelessly inept campaign, and backed the Bush stimulus giveaways. Also, McCain seemed to be terrified by the prospect of being called a racist, and thus failed to attack Obama's radical leftist background.

The Republicans obliged the communists and ran a candidate who Democrats liked. The result was catastrophic. In the future, I'd sugges that Republicans ought to nominate a candidate so conservative that the Democrats hate him/her.

Fortunately, the communists think that Obama won because of them. This ensures that Obama will be a one term president.

The Obama team and The Won himself got elected because the MSM fawned all over him. He could do nothing wrong, his opponents were evil, hope and change would solve world hunger, AIDS, and the waters would recede, and on the 7th day, he would rest.

So now the press isn't in full fawn mode and the Presidency is a hard job and even leftists ask, "well what have you accomplished with our mandate"

The phrase "Muscular Mandate" is sexist, as is the idea that Obama will not be pussy whipped. Does the President suffer from a masculine inferority problem? He never had a Father's example to learn from in his life, except for several Communist Dead-Men-Walking types. It is clear that Obama is not going to see any woman as an equal, but he also wants to win approval from committed Marxist Men the world over. We are in trouble that will nt stop untill the House can be voted into a Republican majority in the 2010 off year elections.

"The fact is that the results of the 2008 election did not reveal "a closely-divided country." Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide."

WTF? He won running as a centrist racial healer and won by less of a margin than Reagan, Nixon in 72 or Bush I. How the hell is that a muscular mandate, whatever that is. I guess the day the last major media outlet not named Fox or the New York Daily News files for bankruptcy will be the day tha these fucking clowns realize the rest of the country doesn't think like they do.

The fact is that the results of the 2008 election did not reveal "a closely-divided country." Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide.

That isn’t saying much is it. Although not a Democrat, than Bush 41 won by a larger margin than The Won and I don’t recall anyone saying Bush 41 had a muscular mandate, much less, a mandate at all. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Obama has a ‘muscular mandate’. What has he done with it in the last 9 months? Thus far it seems he’s managed to alienate his far left backers while causing the scales to fall of the eyes of those who actually believed he was some kind of centrist. Rather than embark on a program of job creation we’re focused solely on expanding more government control over health care and energy while exploding what was already an intolerable budget deficit.

Fox is the opposition? Well thank God considering he has CNN and MSNBC providing cover for him. Where would be all be if we didn’t have Wolf Blitzer to fact check an SNL skit that didn’t pay appropriate homage to Obama?

"It's easy to criticize. It's easy to find fault. But where are your programs? Where are your ideas?"

Who cares? The minority doesn't get to do much and thus are not responsible. The Dems control things and they are responsible. If they don't like it, go back to the minority in 2010. We have effective 16% unemployment, the dollar is going south, Iran is building nukes, the Taliban is taking over Afghanistan and all these losers can do is whine about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. It is just pathetic. Obama and crew are the most pathetic craven bunch of losers ever to gain power in this country.

Sometimes the sun even shines on a dogs hind end. Of course I have a lot to quibble with in this article, but their main point is correct; and I wouldn't want to obscure it...the Obama campaigns boycotting of media that doesn't tow his line is awful.

Let us remember that this is not a recent development. The Democrats as a whole, led by John Edwards, refused to stand for a debate hosted by Fox News. They didn't pay a price for that bit of electoral cowardice, so it stands to reason the Obam-ites think they can get away with it again.

Edwards wouldn't debate of Fox but it was okay for Gwen, isn't it great to be in the age of Obama, Ifel to moderate a Presidential debate. Screw them, without a government bailout, the NYT and MSNObama won't be in business anymore by 2012 anyway.

I have to comment on the reading comprehension -- lack thereof -- of some commenters.

most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide Read those words more carefully. It doesn't say a thing about Reagan, Nixon, or Bush I -- they were REPUBLICANS. It doesn't even claim the mandate Obama earned is particularly large. Sheesh.

Anyway, it seems to me that the aides that surround Obama weren't actually listening to Obama as he campaigned for a more united country. Once they got into power, they too easily have lapsed back into the partisan politics that lamentably characterize DC. It would be nice -- refreshing, actually -- if the press zombies would ask whatever happened to that talking point. But I'm not holding my breath.

He won because the economy collapsed during the last year of the Bush administration.

And for those who haven’t figured it out by now, it is the economy that determines the rise and fall of a President. Carter was on his way out because of the economy. Sitting on his ass over our hostages was the coup de grace. Bush 41 was out because of the economy; a minor recession compared to the one we’re in now. Clinton sailed through two terms despite his moral baggage and a third party candidate drawing off GoP votes from a weak candidate purely because of the economy. By all rights Bush should have lost in 2004 but for a strong economy and a dumbass for a Dem candidate.

Shoutingthomas is spot on. Despite the media adulation and the constant drumbeat of OBAMA HOPE& CHANGE, he won with a 5% point lead over the worst presidential GOP candidate since Bob Dole. The only aspect of the election that was the most stunning to me was that the margin wasn’t larger.Should the economy make some miraculous turnaround within the next year or two, Obambi will be a shoe in for re-election. Then he can safely release the terrorists in Gitmo and surrender to the Taliban without much blowback. It’s just the nature of the electorate and a basic tenant of Machiavelli’s The Prince. If we’re in the same economic situation 3 years from now he’ll be run out of office faster than Lindsey Lohan knocking down a bottle of Stoli.

"Anyway, it seems to me that the aides that surround Obama weren't actually listening to Obama as he campaigned for a more united country. Once they got into power, they too easily have lapsed back into the partisan politics that lamentably characterize DC. It would be nice -- refreshing, actually -- if the press zombies would ask whatever happened to that talking point. But I'm not holding my breath."

It won't happen because it was all a lie that both Obama and the media participated in. Everyone knew Obama was completely left of the country. The plan was always to get him elected as a "centrist", use the Bush backlash to get big majorities in Congress and then get every lefty dream imaginable. That is why they are so upset. The more derranged ones think this crap is popular. The sane ones know it is not popular and that the party is over come 2010. Either way, if they don't get it now, they will never get what they want.

"This isn't news, it's pure propaganda. Is one supposed to lie and say it is?"

And Chris Mathews and the thrill up his leg isn't? And CNN fact checking SNL isn't. If it is propeganda, at least it is propeganda for the minority. That is a lot better than propeganda for the government which is what the other networks do. Do you really think it is a good idea for the entire MSM to serve as a mouthpiece for the govenrment? Even if you like the guy in charge, you should be disturbed by that.

"If we’re in the same economic situation 3 years from now he’ll be run out of office faster than Lindsey Lohan knocking down a bottle of Stoli."

I will do you one better, he won't even be renominated if the economy doesn't improve. He will become an unpopular anchor for Congressional Dems and the Left and the media will turn on him and go from propeganda tools to real journalists. Imgaine what his popularity would be if that happened?

Pussy-whipped wouldn't be drawn out in any case. The Urban Dictionary is good

(1) adj - situation whereupon a male is undeniably at the mercy of his high-maintinence girlfriend & answers to her every beck and call, usually followed by the reprioritizing of girlfriend over friends, family, school, food, water, and air.

From the article: The fact is that the results of the 2008 election did not reveal "a closely-divided country." Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide.

Yes, and how did that turn out? Temporal political trainwrecks (like Goldwater or McCain or LBJ in 1968) aren't the same as a mandate.

That said, Obama deserves to be attacked from the left. He and the Democratic Congress think they have license to churn out massive spending bills, yet timidly wring their hands any time they're called on to support social liberties.

"The real US unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday. "If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.

Fox News has a mandate too -- a business mandate. The formula is to determine what is needed and wanted and to provide it.

When the majority of the old media chose to run interference for Obama, they created an opportunity for Fox. The ratings suggest that Fox is profiting handsomely from having capitalized on the opportunity.

Obama, the formidable candidate, is proving to be an insubstantial President. Of course he is sensitive to negative coverage. Fox, in turn is sensitive to enhanced business opportunities created by his administration's whining.

"That said, Obama deserves to be attacked from the left. He and the Democratic Congress think they have license to churn out massive spending bills, yet timidly wring their hands any time they're called on to support social liberties."

You have to understand, and this is true of both parties, there is a difference between the rank and file who actually believe and things and the leaders and political movers who are just interested in power and stealing. Do you think the SEIU thugs and the various hangers on in Congress give a rat's ass about gay marriage or don't ask don't tell or the Patriot Act? Hell no. They just want their cut.

Red herring. Do you see MSNBC (who starts every day with a Republican for three hours) pimping Moveon rallies? If you think Chris Matthews, who is second to none in Clinton Derangement, is a friend of Dems you're sorely mistaken.

synova (or was it amba?) gave me the impression there was an iron wall of separation between news and opinion at Fox News: the side promoting the Tea Parties had nothing to do with the news operation.

"But to make comparisons over time, we need to maintain a consistent definition of unemployment. Which is the standard one?"

I don't think there is a standard one. It depends on the situation. If the labor force participation rate is high, then I don't think the number than includes discouraged workers is that relevent. But when it falls and the gap between conventional UE and the UE that includes discouraged workers widens, then it becomes very relevent.

"Red herring. Do you see MSNBC (who starts every day with a Republican for three hours) pimping Moveon rallies?"

Scarborough is a died in the wool Obama cocksucker who keeps his job by maintaining against all evidence that he is really a Republican so that losers like you can claim MSNObama is anything but what it is.

Matthews said upfront last fall that this country needed a successful President and that it was his duty to do everything he could to help make that happen. When he is not on Oberman is ranting about Bush or Madow is describing how if she weren't gay she would be sleeping with Obama.

Stop saying stupid and unbelievable things like MSNBC is anything but obama and pro government propeganda

The reporters and news organizations compete on those two things, so they are being lined up to bid for it with their support.

Write a critical news piece and you'll be frozen out of the White House.

When "exclusives" and "early breaking news" lose their competitive advantage (or rather, when the dinosaur media realize that they don't really give a competitive advantage) then the White House will be forced to give up this game.

This game will continue until the editors and producers collectively push back. But don't count on that happening given the industry's last-breath attempts to "compete" and stay alive.

"So the rate of being less than fully employed has gone up by a third since Bush's first term."

That is kind of a dumb way to look at it. It didn't just go up steadily by a third. It dropped and looked pretty good in 2004-2007. It has gone up by more than a third in the last year.

The economy is tanking and is in worse shape than it has been since the 70s. And if things don't start to turn around, it could be 1930s level bad. Are the Obama talking points now that things were worse in 2003? Becuase if they are, they are not going to get far.

'As they [FoxNews] are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.'

"Wouldn't that imply the other networks are so syncophantic that the Obama administration does have to "pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave'?"

Not necessarily. There is a difference between a true adversarial press, who deal in subtantive critiques of the rhetoric and policies of the powerful and an examination of the consequences of those polices, (as well as the consistency of the policies with the rhetoric, or with the will of the public, or with the law), and smear merchants who deal in innuendo, gossip, demagoguery and trivia.

I don't think any of our national news organizations does a subtantive job of serious adversarial journalism, the efforts of a rare few individuals aside. Fox News Network can be counted upon to promulgate right wing talking points and memes; the other networks are largely passive and incoherent, offering no consistent point of view and little serious adversarial journalism or commentary.

The great value of John Stewart's THE DAILY SHOW is to be found in its consistent presentation of the foolishness and failings of our news media as much as or more so than of our elected officials.

Oh for crying out loud. Obama won the Presidency without so much as a resume check. He has children singing paeans to his greatness all across the country. Millions around the globe have gathered to hear him read from a machine. He's even won the blasted Nobel Peace Prize for an accomplishment to be named later. And what gets this blessed man "all wee-wee'd up"? A freaking cable network that occasionally criticizes him. That's his priority. Must we ALL love you, Mr. President?

The standard unemployment rate is BLS series U-3. The people who come out of the woodwork during a recession to make alarmist noises about the "real" unemployment rate are usually referring to U-6-- and they're nearly always trying to bamboozle you into comparing U-3 before with U-6 now. (U-6 increases proportionally less during a recession than U-3.)

I agree that most of the time the U6 is not that valuable. But it can be sometimes. In really good times, the U6 will tell you how much slack is in the labor market and if the economy is about to overheat. In bad times, by telling you how much slack is in the labor market, it tells you how close we are to the bottom. As long as the U6 is high, the U3 isn't going anywhere but up.

"...promulgate right wing talking points" has about much analytical validity as "left wing talking points." When we reify individual voices on either side into some monolithic entity we forego the ability to think at all.

Robert Cook wrote: "I don't think any of our national news organizations does a subtantive job of serious adversarial journalism, the efforts of a rare few individuals aside."

I agree with that, which makes Obama Administration self-pity even more puerile.

Obama is a milquetoast saleseman through and through. His great talent was to sell himself. When asked to sell anything material he flounders. He'll sell you a prototype, but the real product is never going to ship.

"He may be left of you, but he is a milquetoast centrist through and through, and beholden to the same power interests as his predecessor(s)."

That is true only if your point of reference is Madison or Berkley. Compared to the rest of the country he is a tax and spend leftist. Further, no one short of Stalin could ever be left enough for the American Left.

I have to comment on the reading comprehension -- lack thereof -- of some commenters

MadisonMan, I think bringing up the Republicans was done for the purposes of comparison. Bush I had a larger margin of victory than Obama did and I don’t recall anyone claiming Bush I had any kind of mandate. I’ll concede that if there was a mandate at all it was that he wasn’t Bush 43.

. It doesn't even claim the mandate Obama earned is particularly large. Sheesh.

What then is ‘muscular mandate’ supposed to mean then?

This isn't news, it's pure propaganda. Is one supposed to lie and say it is?

It’s just as much news as when Wolf Blizter saw fit to fact check an SNL skit. It’s not your fault garage, you see the world purely through the liberal lens so when media outlets like CNN or MSNBC are so thoroughly in the tank for Obama, it doesn’t register. Just like when you’re watching your favorite football team and never see the blatant penalties your side commits. But those other guys…sheesh.

"Obama is a milquetoast saleseman through and through. His great talent was to sell himself. When asked to sell anything material he flounders. He'll sell you a prototype, but the real product is never going to ship."

That is the problem with running on personality and personal story. He didn't run on ideas. He ran on the fact that he was cool and black. Contrast that with Regean, whose biography everyone used against him (he was just an "actor" after all) but ran on ideas and programs. Reagan, despite only controling the Senate, ran his policies through Congress like crap through a goose. Obama even though he has both houses of Congress, can't get anything done because he can't move the polls.

Obama only knows one thing, it is good to be Obama. He can't sell ideas only personality and bullshit

The Nation is smart and the rest of the MSM could learn something from them. You're supposed to build up your journalistic integrity between elections so you have something to throw away when it's election season again.

"I'm not accusing the BLS of maintaining a useless data series, I'm accusing John of using it dishonestly."

Then you are not paying attention. Comparing the U-3 to the U-6 is dishonest. I never did any such thing. I merely pointed out that the U-6 is 16% which it is. If you won't admit that is a significant figure, you are being dishonest and need to stop projecting.

While I agree with Nichols that Obama is in danger of turning himself into the whiner-in-chief, it was still odd seeing that critique in the Nation. Another way to look at O's bashing of Fox, and the WH's effort to utz the lefty bloggers into a partisan froth, is that Team O has adopted a decidedly European approach to journalism. Normally, I'd expect the Nation's writers to be all in favor of the Euro-view, especially when they could use it to trash the more traditional American approach.

Sarko doesn't expect to get good press in Le Monde, the Torys don't hold their breath waiting for favorable coverage in the Guardian, etc. They know that those outlets are the voices of the opposition, and act accordingly. It's fitting that O should go for the full Euro-style hit when it comes to dealing with the press. After all, he's our first post-American president, our first sitting President to win the Nobel just for starting his administration with an international apology tour to prove to our foreign betters that he's really not his predecessor.

I don't read Stalinist rags for the same reason I don't read Nazi rags.

The Nation is the U.S. mouthpiece for Stalinism. Always has been.

I like Althouse. I like this blog. It is a peculiar characteristic of U.S. intellectuals, this willingness to give a reading to Stalinists. I don't think Althouse would give a reading to Nazis. Haven't read any such reference on this blog.

The track record of Stalinism (you know... genocide, slavery, absolute economic devastation) entitles that vicious ideology to burial in the same graveyard to which Nazi-ism is consigned.

I think Nicols is thinking long term. If it is okay for Obama to treat Fox as the opposition, it will be okay for Republicans to do the same with pretty much the rest of the MSM. When power shifts back to the Republicans, that won't be a good thing for an MSM that is already losing money hand over fist.

It’s just as much news as when Wolf Blizter saw fit to fact check an SNL skit. It’s not your fault garage, you see the world purely through the liberal lens so when media outlets like CNN or MSNBC are so thoroughly in the tank for Obama, it doesn’t register..

You know nothing of liberal politics if you think CNN and MSNBC, as a whole, actually promote liberal policies. It's all just conventional wisdom gossipy chatter between D+ elites. MSNBC, who is owned by a defense contractor, is beholden to leftists? Seriously.

A couple of weeks ago, Katrina Van Den Heuvel sent me an email informing me that the Nation was going on a cruise, and asked if I wanted to go. I emailed her back, and said, "sure, if I could share a cabin with her" I haven't heard a thing from her since.

"Obama even though he has both houses of Congress, can't get anything done because he can't move the polls."

No.

Obama can't get anything done because he doesn't have any deep convictions, and he wants to be "bipartisan." Additionally, he is at the beck and call of the oligarchs--the wealthy individuals and corporations that own this country--and he will not challenge them or their agenda in any way.

Reagan "got things done" because he was also a puppet of the oligarchs, who had, over time, had some of their agenda thwarted or dismantled; Reagan worked furiously to put back in place those aspects of agenda of the wealthy owners of our Republic that had been diminished or demolished. There's not much more for Obama to do except maintain and defend that corrupt edifice of the wealthy that has been cemented in place over the last 29 years.

The fact that Reagan's policies were wildly popular, ended amazingly failed economic policies of the 1970s and set the country up for growth in the 1980s that was thought impossible in the 1970s, had something to do with his success.

Oligarchs? Are you kidding me? Governmet control is what oligarchs want. Reglulations and taxes destroy the little guy who isn't big enough to game the system. Look at any country in the world and you will find the more socialist it is, the richer and more powerful its oligarchs are. Once the government gets involved, the rewards go to the politically connected and powerful and the little guy is squashed. The idea that big government is for anything but the rich and connected is one of the most derranged myths put out by the Left.

Usurpation of the free press by the left has proved profitable for the opportunists at Fox.

The problem is that people who are interested in their fellow man, like journalists, are invariably liberal. Just as people who can think flexibly, like academics, are invariably liberal. This explains why conservatives, who lack imagination, see conspiracy where only affinity and aptitude exist.

Stop saying stupid and unbelievable things like MSNBC is anything but obama and pro government propaganda

This is garage we’re talking about. To him anything Obama says must be the truth therefore MSNBC and CNN are simply reporting the truth ergo, no bias.

Liberals are so invested in their ideology that it’s a faith based system that cannot be questioned. Dan Rather lost his job because he and his producer ran a bullshit story with zero fact checking because they wanted to effect a presidential election. The last 8-10 years are replete with examples of slipshod reporting and outright fraud to advance a liberal point of view it’s breathtaking but the garage mahals just yell ‘red herring!’

Fox and the Republican party are really propping each other up, the muscle being on the Fox side.

Meanwhile progressives are lazy -- I'm a progressive and I'm lazy too. Obama begged us in his inaugural address to get out there and do the job because he can't do everything. We cheered, but we didn't follow through. We don't unsubscribe to Fox (small sacrifice) and we don't go for a really effective boycott of Fox advertisers.

Honest, that stuff works. It's worked already. More is better. In fact, without more, we're stuck with these varmints forever.

"The problem is that people who are interested in their fellow man, like journalists, are invariably liberal. Just as people who can think flexibly, like academics, are invariably liberal. This explains why conservatives, who lack imagination, see conspiracy where only affinity and aptitude exist."

That hs got to be the dumbest thing you have ever wrote on here. Wow. Journalists interested in their fellow man? Oh you mean like when they film Marines dying in Aghanistan or ask widows and shotting victims "how do you feel"? Give me a break. If you notice though, academics and journalists do have one thing in common beyond being usually leftists, they do absolutely nothing productive. Those who think realisticly and bring productive energy to the table tend to be conservative. Those who navel gaze, intellectual masterbate and are generally incapable of coping with the world as it actually is versus some bizaro view of it, tend to be liberal. Liberals give us utopian ideas and inevitably governments who kill for them to be realized. Conservatives just give us prosperity and progress.

You know nothing of liberal politics if you think CNN and MSNBC, as a whole, actually promote liberal policies.

I guess I could say the same for garage and your obsessive belief that Fox is promoting liberal policies.

MSNBC, who is owned by a defense contractor, is beholden to leftists?

Well gee garage, its not like there isn't a shortage of leftists on the network fellating Obama on a daily basis. If you want to think that they're fair and balanced and Fox is biased fine. Considering you told me that Obama's health care plan is only being held up by a 'handful' of Dem congressmen tells me your logical deduction is as faulty as your math.

FLS: why am I guessing you think of yourself as a liberal? And if you think academics are "flexible thinkers," you appear not have a lot of experience in academe except, perhaps, as your name suggests, a former student.

"We don't unsubscribe to Fox (small sacrifice) and we don't go for a really effective boycott of Fox advertisers."

What would be the point of that? What if conservatives boycotted advertisers for MSNObama? Do you really think it is a good idea to silence any opposition view point? Further, do you really think that obama is failing because of the evil Fox and Rush? If that is true, why not just take matters into your own hands and shoot them or throw them in jail? It is really astounding what oppressive authoritarians leftists and progressives really are. They assume that the right is fascist because they know that is what they would do given the chance.

"Oligarchs? Are you kidding me? Governmet control is what oligarchs want. Reglulations and taxes destroy the little guy who isn't big enough to game the system. Look at any country in the world and you will find the more socialist it is, the richer and more powerful its oligarchs are. Once the government gets involved, the rewards go to the politically connected and powerful and the little guy is squashed. The idea that big government is for anything but the rich and connected is one of the most derranged myths put out by the Left."

And your point is...?

Oligarchs have no politics other than aggrandizement of their wealth and power. The oligarchs in our society are primarily supporters of right wing candidates and parties because the right is more philosophically attuned to the agenda of the oligarchs, but Obama and most Dems are beholden to them for the money they contribute for their campaigns. As Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out, we no longer effectively have two parties in this country, but two sides or wings of one party, the Business Party. The only difference is that the Republicans openly espouse the agenda of the wealthy and powerful while the Dems pretend to espouse the agenda of citizens and working people; both parties work for the same gangsters.

The oligarchs do want control of government, and this is what they have and will continue to have until we get a President with the guts and spine to throw them off and do some kick ass trust-busting!(In short: never.)

My point is that if you support big government, you by definition support oligarchs. Most Progressives are just left over elitists who love the idea of a ruling elite controling everyone's lives. They are anything but the friend of the little guy.

"The oligarchs do want control of government, and this is what they have and will continue to have until we get a President with the guts and spine to throw them off and do some kick ass trust-busting!"

No. Just get the government out of our lives and radically reduce its power and those "trusts" you are so concerned about will go away on their own. To the extent that there is such a thing, and frankly I think you are a little derranged on this point, they exist because of the protection of government.

My talking point is that Conservatives ignore problems unless they happen on a Democrat's watch. ....

The problem is that people who are interested in their fellow man, like journalists, are invariably liberal. Just as people who can think flexibly, like academics, are invariably liberal. This explains why conservatives, who lack imagination, see conspiracy where only affinity and aptitude exist.

What a surprising couple of comments from you, fls. ROTFL

Perhaps it is just that conservative don't think that the solutions to all problems should manifest themselves in government action.

While many leftists including journalists promote government redistribution of wealth, conservatives actually give money to charity. Compare, e.g., the contributions of Bush/Cheney to those of Obama/Biden.

Leftist academics are flexible thinkers? Please. There is nothing flexible about their thinking, their views are eminently predictable and traceable to The Frankfurt School -- although most lack the sharpness of Marcuse and company.

I'm not sure about the "seeing conspiracy" part. Mostly conservatives just observe lefties or take them at their word. Not too many truthers, for example, on the right.

Actually MSNBC is not pure propaganda 24x7. They have large stretches of programming time that they fill with old NBC infotainment shows like Dateline. They do this because they cannot produce enough other programming that anyone wants to watch. Evidently, their 150,000 viewers do not watch MSNBC all the time.

The problem is that people who are interested in their fellow man, like journalists, are invariably liberal. Just as people who can think flexibly, like academics, are invariably liberal. This explains why conservatives, who lack imagination, see conspiracy where only affinity and aptitude exist.

Oh good lord, I haven't read anything that naive and bigoted in quite some time, and that's saying a lot. Other people have already taken you down for the hilarious notion of "flexible" academics and the idea that journalists are "interested in their fellow man." Let me add that that may be so, but the way today's crop of newshounds is interested in their fellow man more resembles the way the town gossip used to be interested in her fellow man: as a vehicle for making herself more important. Actual fellow-feeling, the realization that all people, even conservatives, are human, is rarely to be found in the output of the average MSM journalist.

And then there is the notion that conservatives "have no imagination" and, unlike liberals, aren't "interested" in other people. This is merely a rephrasing of the common liberal canard that conservatives are mean! and don't care! and have dull little mundane interests like working for a living, raising families, going to church, and being left alone by liberals and their eternal cockeyed schemes. We're supposed to hang our head in guilt whenever some purse-mouthed progressive comes at us with "you don't care about people, you selfish old conservative you." But you know what? It doesn't work anymore. But liberals will never find another song, because they are the ones who have no interest in "their fellow man" and that's why they never seem to learn anything about human nature.

"The problem is that people who are interested in their fellow man, like journalists, are invariably liberal. Just as people who can think flexibly, like academics, are invariably liberal. This explains why conservatives, who lack imagination, see conspiracy where only affinity and aptitude exist."

To the degree, however minimal, that trusts and other corporate entities are held in check, it is through the regulatory power of government."

Robert Cooke, you are so stupid as to be either derranged or retarded. Only someone who has absolutely relieved themselves of the burdens of reality could think that government holds the powers that be in the economy in check. That is why highly regulated economies such as Mexico or the EU have so few monopolies and oligarchs and so few small businesses.

Do you honestly think that government can act as a check on as opposed to an arm of the economically powerful and connected? Jesus. You keep whining about how every politician is a tool of the powerful. Really? Now think tha through for a moment. If every politician is a tool for the powerful, how can you be surprised when the government is a tool for the powerful? That is the way it works. That is the way it will always work. The government will never break up trusts, it will only do what governments do, protect those it favors and are connected and powerful. You keep playing this game of "this guy will look out for someone other than the powerful" and continually lose. Perhaps some day it will dawn on you that the game is rigged and the only way to win is take power away from the government not give it more.

Or maybe you will continue to rant about oligarchs with all the coherence of a crazy old lady at the seven eleven who forgot her meds today. Sadly, the latter is more likly.

There are plenty of people trying out for AMERICAN IDOL who are as utterly bereft of talent as they are confident they're overflowing with it.

And there are plenty of people who quote Noam Chomskey who think they're enlightened and tend to be as clueless to reality as a heroin addict.

Let me put it to you this way Cook. I listened to the same kind of leftist crap you post here 20+ years ago when I was in college and the only thing that stands out to me is that there are still people who subscribe to this shit.

When there are persons in government who serve the people who elected them, and when these people can effect laws that regulate business, corporate power can be checked. This has happened in the past. Teddy Roosevelt was famous for being a great trust-buster. The Bell Telephone monopoly was broken apart and hence all the various phone companies we know today were able to be brought into existence. After the collapse of the economy during the Great Depression, regulations were implemented that helped keep in check the power of the banks and financial houses. The renascence of power of these institutions was made possible only through the systematic dismantling of these financial regulations, which has been underway since the Reagan era, and as their power has grown, so have the depradations they have inflicted on our country.

When you have a government, as today, composed largely of men and women who are corrupted by their dependence on the money provided by these powerful institutions, or by dogmatic adherence to an ideology that there is no regulation on business so small that it is not an offense against nature, the power of wealthy institutions grows unchecked and becomes a tyranny, which is our present situation.

I assert this tyranny will never end, but I express my disgust for these institutions with some metaphorical overstatement. Perhaps the tyranny of the institutions of wealth will be broken one day, either through a complete collapse of our economy, or through a resurgence by the citizenry, determined to exercise power over their own lives...but I have no great hope of this at this time, (and of course a complete collapse of our economy would be, like some medical treatments, more destructive to our society than the illness it might cure).

When you have a government, as today, composed largely of men and women who are corrupted by their dependence on the money provided by these powerful institutions, or by dogmatic adherence to an ideology that there is no regulation on business so small that it is not an offense against nature, the power of wealthy institutions grows unchecked and becomes a tyranny, which is our present situation.

You know Cookie, when I do deign to read your posts I have to admit, you certainly have a style of writing about you. If I concentrate hard enough I can actually hear The Internationale playing in the background.

"When you have a government, as today, composed largely of men and women who are corrupted by their dependence on the money provided by these powerful institutions, or by dogmatic adherence to an ideology that there is no regulation on business so small that it is not an offense against nature, the power of wealthy institutions grows unchecked and becomes a tyranny, which is our present situation."

My filter does not permit me to follow Hoosier's link, but I gotta tell you that this particular sentence has a very late 18 or early 19th century feel to it. David Ricardo? Mill the elder? Perhaps even Adam Smith?

Not accusing Cookie of plagiarizing, but he sounds like he might give Sir Archy a run for his money.

"When there are persons in government who serve the people who elected them, and when these people can effect laws that regulate business, corporate power can be checked."

No. Politically unconnected corporate power will be checked.

"This has happened in the past. Teddy Roosevelt was famous for being a great trust-buster."

And he also had economic policies that would put him far to the right of anything you would accept. He broke a few trusts sure. But he was hardly a leftist.

"The Bell Telephone monopoly was broken apart and hence all the various phone companies we know today were able to be brought into existence."

First, that was done by the evil Regean Administration. Second, the bell system was created and maintained its monopoly primarily because of previous government intervention. If governmnent hadn't given the monopoly in the first place it wouldn'nt have had to get rid of it. Second, the advent of cell phones and wireless would have rendered a monopoly over landlines meaningless anyway. So we wasted billions doing what the market would have done on its own.

"After the collapse of the economy during the Great Depression, regulations were implemented that helped keep in check the power of the banks and financial houses."

Are you insane? No one could be this historically ignornat. FDR sold out completely to the big corporations. His policies supresed competition and artificially raised prices. FDR was the biggest corporate oligarch lover of the 20th Century. Read history and not leftist cartoons.

"The renascence of power of these institutions was made possible only through the systematic dismantling of these financial regulations, which has been underway since the Reagan era, and as their power has grown, so have the depradations they have inflicted on our country."

Glass Stegal was repealed under Clinton. Second, government guarentee of risks shockingly caused banks to do risky things knowing the government would bail them out. Again, the government is the culprit for most of our woes. Further, those evil bankers also bankrolled the 1980s and 1990s which was the longest sustained period of growth in the 20th Century.

There is one place where the corporate types and bankers were really put out of power, the Eastern Block. Boy that worked out well.

Beth: agree on that point--remove the "and women" and look at it again. There are two phrases, "...an offense against nature...," and "...our present situation..." Assuming offense against nature is not a euphemism for masturbation, it's a striking turn of phrase in this day and age.

Again--Credit to Mr. Cook for some striking prose, and he could easily give Sir Archy a run for his (or her) money.

John,Please learn to read carefully. Where do I say that only "leftists" can combat corporate power (or that only "rightists" can be in thrall to it)? I also point out that the dismantling of regulations checking the power of the financial institutions has been underway SINCE the Reagan administration. Clinton was in office SINCE the Reagan administration.

Lem gives one of the great one-liners. If I was Fox Corporate, a talk radio host, or even John Stewart....I'd go with it until Obama has a kissy-kissy Beer Summit with Rupert Murdoch, Anita Dunn, Bill O'REilly.

Apparently president Obama would rather sit down with Al Jazeera than with Fox News.

Until then, pound the one-liner.

Oh, sorry...Invite Joe Biden to the Summit - he'll talk to anyone, anytime. And leave Republicans out of it, especially McCain, who will go and mess anything up as long as he gets to be the one that gets to step up to the stage 1st and announce all his "Dear Friends" have reached a bipartisan solution.

=================shoutingthomas said... Obama did not win because of "progressives," i.e., communists. (The Nation is a commie propaganda rag.)

He won because the economy collapsed during the last year of the Bush administration. He won because McCain ran a hopelessly inept campaign, and backed the Bush stimulus giveaways. Also, McCain seemed to be terrified by the prospect of being called a racist, and thus failed to attack Obama's radical leftist background.

The Republicans obliged the communists and ran a candidate who Democrats liked. The result was catastrophic. In the future, I'd sugges that Republicans ought to nominate a candidate so conservative that the Democrats hate him/her.

Point 1 - Obama won against a very weak candidate - who advocated war with Russia to save the "Freedom Lovers!" of Georgia after Georgia started a war and got thrashed pretty good for it. Then advocated bombing Iran and shutting down the global economy when we were already perched on the edge of a Depression.Point 2 - He won against a candidate who also wanted Carbon regulation. Who wanted Amnesty. Who was even more clueless on the economy than Obama's team of Goldman Sachs perps.Point 3 - Obama was helped when McCain's VP pick caused independent females to turn away from Republicans in droves.

shoutingthomas - In the future, I'd sugges(t) that Republicans ought to nominate a candidate so conservative that the Democrats hate him/her.

That was the McGovernite Left's suggestion from the other side of the spectrum, from 1978-1988. That the Dems were losing because they were not extreme enough liberals, and insisted that they work harder finding candidates and policies Republicans and those worthless moderate DINOs really hated.

In hindsight, given the self-inflicted damage "McGovernite Purity Tests" caused Dems - losing them whole swaths of the country outside Blue Bastions - it was an exceptionally stupid strategy.

"In hindsight, given the self-inflicted damage "McGovernite Purity Tests" caused Dems - losing them whole swaths of the country outside Blue Bastions - it was an exceptionally stupid strategy."

Maybe.

But only if the opponent chooses a genuinely centrist moderate.

Because what the Republicans get by nominating someone on the basis of appeal to Democrats is that the Democrats vote for the Democratic candidate.

Appeal to swing voters is different, but even there it has got to help, rather than hurt, to have a candidate that is distinguishable from the opposition. I think that most people do want something to actually chose between.

Do you recall the story that Obama told prior to the election where his grandmother would wake him up at an ungodly early hour to go over his studies? He would whine about that to her and she would whine back, saying something like, "Do you think this is a piece of cake for me, bub?"

This is the "double whine" technique, and he apparently has fond memories of it because he smiled wide every time he told the story.

Listen up, Fox News. It's your turn to whine loudly and repetitively about a president who doesn't seem to understand the greater implications of his childish actions.

R Cooke and JohnLong time reader, first time commenterThe problem is monopolies - whether they are private or public (e.g. government). Cooke is right that entities strive to be monopolies because it gives them both pricing power AND the ability to stifle outside innovation.The Bell monopoly breakup was initiated in 1974, but not finalized until 1982. Without the break up of break-up of Bell, I doubt if there would have been cellular telephones, and the Internet might still be an obscure Defense Department application. The terms of the regulations in 1974 were that individuals could NOT attach anything to a phone line that was not supplied by Bell - not even an earpiece. And all phone lines in an area were supplied by Bell.

There is an example of regulation of a monopoly, in which we are all better off without both the regulation and the monopoly.*

I am not saying all regulation is bad or unnecessary - but it seems to me that we would all be better off if people and businesses were less concerned about buying access to the government who controls the rules, and more focused on innovations. The more rules and regulations, the more payoff from influencing them. But if the payoff comes from manipulating the rules, then that is what people and businesses will do.

If the King (whoever it is) is the one with the power to award opportunities for monopolies, or an easier life, then everyone will fawn over and pay off the King. Don't tell me the King doesn't like to be fawned over.... That is not consistent with history. So John is right when he says a solution is to give less power to the King.

*or we were better off. AT&T is now one of the five largest lobbying spenders....